Log in:  

Register

The Froome Files, test data only thread

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Valv.Piti, Pricey_sky, Tonton, King Boonen

Re:

03 Dec 2015 13:04

King Boonen wrote:From Ross Tucker:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/what-to-expect-from-chris-froomes-physiological-test-data/

I don't quite follow that efficiency is inverse to VO2max. I can understand it at a constant power, that's obvious, but I can't see why it logically follows at maximum effort/threshold/whatever.


It's a result found in studies.
Letters to and from the pro peloton. twitter | blog
User avatar Dear Wiggo
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,087
Joined: 29 Sep 2012 10:11
Location: Sunny Australia

03 Dec 2015 14:03

Yes, as DW notes, several studies have provided some evidence that efficiency and V02max tend to be inversely correlated. The relationship isn't really logical, it's empirical. Tucker says, "if you are very efficient, then the demand for oxygen is lower, even at maximum exercise, so your VO2max tends to be lower." That assumes that there is some constant energy level that has to be maintained, but of course there isn't. The greater the energy created, the more power. IOW, an elite athlete will have a higher demand for oxygen than an amateur, and so could certainly benefit from both greater V02max and greater efficiency.

There could be an evolutionary logic behind an inverse relationship, though. Taking in oxygen, transporting it to the muscles, and converting it to energy has limits, even in an elite athlete. There are metabolic costs to having larger lungs and heart, more blood vessel area, and larger muscles. The most powerful of our ancestors may have run up against these limits, which would have resulted in selection pressure for an inverse relationship. IOW, there would be diminishing returns for greater energy at some point, so that the ideal individual would have an energy output within some broad range. Under these conditions, the highest V02max values would tend to be associated with lower efficiencies, and vice-versa. Not because logically the one goes with the other, but because as a matter of survival, higher values of one may have had greater survival value if they were associated with lower values of the other.

Some other comments on Tucker's article:

If I had to make some informed predictions, a rider who can produce those performances would require a VO2max between 85 ml/kg/min and 90 ml/kg/min, in combination with efficiency of between 23% and 23.5%. He could get away with a lower VO2max (smaller engine) if his efficiency is much higher, and vice-versa, but I suspect we'll see pretty much what's expected at the top end of what is known of human physiology.


This is exactly the V02max range I suggested earlier And I would add, Froome would have trouble with a higher V02max, as is would raise questions (even more than will be in any case) of why he wasn't better before 2011.

What would help is the pairing of this data with biological data, as well as more data over time (which, apparently doesn't exist, as Froome reportedly never did a VO2max test with Sky). However, biological data does, both from the passport and what would be regular medical checks by the cyclist...

That's especially true if we see the 'chapters' from 2007 and 2015. The only way to link those is to provide biological data that would make the bilharzia (and asthma) a plausible explanation.


If Tucker is saying that seeing data from both periods would allow us to evaluate how much effect schisto had on him, I have to assume he hasn't followed the schisto story very closely. As Hitch in particular has documented, there are major inconsistencies in that story that seriously undercut its plausibility for his improved performance in 2011. Froome isn't going to be able to point to lower values in 2007 and say, these occurred at the same time that my blood system was compromised with schisto, because we already know from what he has said that there is no correlation. He was being treated for schisto well after his transformation in 2011, indeed, one of his treatments came not long after his original Vuelta surprise. Furthermore, someone, was it Walsh? Grappe? I don't remember who, but someone claimed to have seen his passport values pre-2011, and said they were completely normal. Not to mention that the five treatments he has owned up to are virtually unprecedented and unexplainable for anyone with the disease.

I have no doubt that the testing will have been done to the highest standards. I know one of the researchers personally (Jeroen Swart) and I believe him to be one of the best physiologists in the world in cycling, and also someone who is sincere and who has integrity. I don't know what process was followed, or whether there were conditions that had to be met, but I believe that Jeroen is a trustworthy scientist, to the point that I think the data produced will be beyond reproach. Similarly, I know Ken van Someren who heads up the laboratory, and I've no reason to doubt his sincerity either.


Fair enough. Since Tucker pointed out earlier in this piece that the data aren't going to show that Froome either doped or is clean, there's no reason why the researchers shouldn't be trustworthy.
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,142
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

Re:

03 Dec 2015 14:19

Benotti69 wrote:Astana coach Slongo on Froome:

"We'll be able to see his current values at the moment but we won't learn anything based on [those] numbers."


This part is even better:

“Is it a risk for Froome to release these power numbers? His rivals will see them, for sure, but going from there to the races, what will it mean?” Slongo added.

“It’s like if your car goes 50kph and mine 48… I can see how fast yours goes but I can’t do anything legally to change my speed"
User avatar Rollthedice
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,033
Joined: 11 May 2013 10:59

Re: Re:

03 Dec 2015 14:40

bewildered wrote:Yes for reals.


You really - really - think that what was written means he got the 2007 WCC results and then did the GSK tests in August? You don't think it means that he did the GSK tests in August and after that - since when - he obtained from the WCC the results of his 2007 tests?

Since when did "since when" - as used by Tom Cary in that article - not mean "after which"?

Serious question: is English a foreign language for you? Genuine question, no barbs attached.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Member
 
Posts: 1,885
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re:

03 Dec 2015 14:50

Merckx index wrote:
Baltimore says: “it would suggest that the complete data set was collected for the purpose of the study. Those 2007 numbers wouldn't be publishable otherwise.”

Maybe, but it doesn’t say anything like that in the passage, does it? It’s not at all obvious that that is the intended meaning of the passage, is it?

Anyone who can look at that passage and conclude that the meaning is obvious is obviously reading into it things that are not actually there, raising questions about how objectively that poster will look at anything else.


It is definitely ambiguous. My reading could be completely wrong, but that is how data exchange would be talked about. The idiom is used incorrectly, so it should've been edited. As demonstrated above, I have never seen 'since when' used anywhere other than a question. JMO.
djpbaltimore
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,841
Joined: 09 Jun 2014 13:41
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Re:

03 Dec 2015 14:57

djpbaltimore wrote:I have never seen 'since when' used anywhere other than a question.


Entry nine here.

If you think 'since when' can only be used as question, where was the question mark in Cary's article?

Try Googling something like "since when he has been"
User avatar fmk_RoI
Member
 
Posts: 1,885
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

03 Dec 2015 15:22

I stand corrected about the usage of 'since when'. I originally thought that it was intended to be 'since then' and was a typo.
djpbaltimore
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,841
Joined: 09 Jun 2014 13:41
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re:

03 Dec 2015 15:28

djpbaltimore wrote:I stand corrected about the usage of 'since when'. I originally thought that it was intended to be 'since then' and was a typo.


So it wasn't "definitely ambiguous" after all? One had to make an assumption in order to read it as such? You had to be, as a wiser man than I claimed, reading into it things that are not actually there, raising questions about how objectively that poster will look at anything else?
User avatar fmk_RoI
Member
 
Posts: 1,885
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re:

03 Dec 2015 15:29

Benotti69 wrote:Astana coach Slongo on Froome:

"We'll be able to see his current values at the moment but we won't learn anything based on [those] numbers."


Well that's incredibly rich coming from an Astana employee :D
bigcog
Member
 
Posts: 1,069
Joined: 09 Jul 2012 18:33

Re: Re:

03 Dec 2015 15:51

fmk_RoI wrote:
djpbaltimore wrote:I stand corrected about the usage of 'since when'. I originally thought that it was intended to be 'since then' and was a typo.


So it wasn't "definitely ambiguous" after all? One had to make an assumption in order to read it as such? You had to be, as a wiser man than I claimed, reading into it things that are not actually there, raising questions about how objectively that poster will look at anything else?


its still ambigious for other reasons though... ;)
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,046
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

Re: Re:

03 Dec 2015 15:53

fmk_RoI wrote:So it wasn't "definitely ambiguous" after all? One had to make an assumption in order to read it as such? You had to be, as a wiser man than I claimed, reading into it things that are not actually there, raising questions about how objectively that poster will look at anything else?


That is right, I have to change my earlier opinion. Going by the definition you linked above, the meaning for that passage becomes evident. YMMV
djpbaltimore
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,841
Joined: 09 Jun 2014 13:41
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re:

03 Dec 2015 16:05

harryh wrote:@86TDFWinner Are we talking about the same test? Anyway,

jeroen.png



I'm not sure what other/different test(s) you're talking about. I'm simply saying that whatever data/results/tests/etc Froome is doing to try to prove he's "cleans", most likely won't be anything that will nail him, or show any positives. It's all a calculated plan imo.
User avatar 86TDFWinner
Member
 
Posts: 1,664
Joined: 11 Aug 2012 21:10
Location: Southern California

Re:

03 Dec 2015 16:11


Fair enough. Since Tucker pointed out earlier in this piece that the data aren't going to show that Froome either doped or is clean, there's no reason why the researchers shouldn't be trustworthy.


If what you're saying here is true, then this supposed current testing/release of info/ whatever by Froome is pointless then, because it won't show either way whether he's cleans or doping?
Last edited by 86TDFWinner on 03 Dec 2015 16:18, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar 86TDFWinner
Member
 
Posts: 1,664
Joined: 11 Aug 2012 21:10
Location: Southern California

Re: Re:

03 Dec 2015 16:14

gillan1969 wrote:
harryh wrote:@86TDFWinner Are we talking about the same test? Anyway,

jeroen.png


suggests (or, if you like, infers ;) ) favourable outcome for the Froome....otherwise no need for any conspiracy theory..


That's exactly what I was referring to.
User avatar 86TDFWinner
Member
 
Posts: 1,664
Joined: 11 Aug 2012 21:10
Location: Southern California

Re:

03 Dec 2015 16:42

If Tucker is saying that seeing data from both periods would allow us to evaluate how much effect schisto had on him, I have to assume he hasn't followed the schisto story very closely. As Hitch in particular has documented, there are major inconsistencies in that story that seriously undercut its plausibility for his improved performance in 2011. Froome isn't going to be able to point to lower values in 2007 and say, these occurred at the same time that my blood system was compromised with schisto, because we already know from what he has said that there is no correlation. He was being treated for schisto well after his transformation in 2011, indeed, one of his treatments came not long after his original Vuelta surprise. Furthermore, someone, was it Walsh? Grappe? I don't remember who, but someone claimed to have seen his passport values pre-2011, and said they were completely normal. Not to mention that the five treatments he has owned up to are virtually unprecedented and unexplainable for anyone with the disease.


Tucker is not saying that the testing from pre and post "transformation" will detail the effect of BadZhilla. He is saying that biological data would need to be provided between the two points and prior. Two stakes of testing in the ground only tell what Froome did on those two days and nothing in between.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 20,324
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: Re:

03 Dec 2015 16:48

bigcog wrote:
Benotti69 wrote:Astana coach Slongo on Froome:

"We'll be able to see his current values at the moment but we won't learn anything based on [those] numbers."


Well that's incredibly rich coming from an Astana employee :D


Rich in knowledge ;)
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,030
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

Re: Re:

03 Dec 2015 16:53

Benotti69 wrote:
bigcog wrote:
Benotti69 wrote:Astana coach Slongo on Froome:

"We'll be able to see his current values at the moment but we won't learn anything based on [those] numbers."


Well that's incredibly rich coming from an Astana employee :D


Rich in knowledge ;)


The point Slongo is making that test data doesn't provide indication that someone is clean or not. You can dope prior to testing just as much as you can prior to racing. That's why Tucker is saying the longitude biological data between the tests is very important.

Its not WHY a rider can record the results they do in a test its the HOW.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 20,324
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

03 Dec 2015 17:47

why do my fellow travellers on The Clinic need the testing and Brailsford, it just seems the MSM and the bought and paid for Murdoch media, will always ensure Froome is not daubed with a doping brush, so they are always protected, and they can spin any result any which-way they like to "prove" they are clean when they are anything but. It is really down-the-freekin-rabbit-hole stuff.

I do wonder tho, about JTL. Now, in the rank and hierarchy of acronyms, JTL comes a distant second to LRP. But I do have an empathy for JTL being a scapegoat for the other doping cyclists.

JTL is the anglos and brits own Russian. He is the weakest member of the tribe, he is an inverted social darwinistic[sic] non muslim martyr. poor JTL. p'raps his parents could have given him a better more mellifluous name like LRP. then he could dope like LRP
"Hitler … didn't even sink to using chemical weapons."
User avatar blackcat
Veteran
 
Posts: 12,232
Joined: 13 Mar 2009 19:20

03 Dec 2015 17:49

So, nothing released yet? Is Froomey waiting for Sinterklaas?
il Mito wrote:“I’m in pension, I don’t give a **** about training,” Ferrari said. “They are all strong without me. Did you see the Tour de France?”
User avatar Fearless Greg Lemond
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,202
Joined: 20 Apr 2012 15:07
Location: Netherlands

Re:

03 Dec 2015 18:08

Fearless Greg Lemond wrote:So, nothing released yet? Is Froomey waiting for Sinterklaas?


It's not due until Friday morning. Though loads of people have apparently been on the Esquire site bashing the hell out of F5 all day long...
User avatar fmk_RoI
Member
 
Posts: 1,885
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Blanco, Craigee and 20 guests

Back to top